Eric Erickson: Failure to block the ACA will lead to a "real third party movement"

[KingOrfeo]

Eric Erickson: Failure to block the ACA will lead to a "real third party movement"

Story here. Oh, and he also says:

And despite polling that consistently shows Republicans are paying a political price for the shutdown, Erickson insisted earlier this week that the "GOP is winning" the public opinion battle.

So anything he says here should be taken with a mine of salt. But as for the TP faction (clearly what he means) going third-party, I'm sure he's not the only one saying it. Is there any chance at all?

Please?

 

[Not Normal]

I don't think the money people will allow the Tea Party to become a viable 3rd party, because they know, ultimately it will weaken conservative support as a whole.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see a viable 3rd party. Preferable one that wasn't cooks from either side, but one that actually was interested in the well being of the nation, and not the status quo. I do not have high hopes.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Personally, I'd LOVE to see a viable 3rd party. Preferable one that wasn't cooks from either side, but one that actually was interested in the well being of the nation, and not the status quo. I do not have high hopes.

That happens only if the left wing of the Dems splits off, and even then it probably would not be "viable."

 

[Mischka]

Is there an example of a successfully sustained three-party system in any country? Seems that some countries, including the United States, have dabbled in a third party for an election cycle or two, but then they go back to their two-party mold. Multiple parties only seem to work if there are at least four or more parties that build coalitions on various issues. And will that ever happen in the United States? I read the book Crunchy Cons several years ago, which broke the Republican and Democratic parties into two parts each, along social and economic lines. Some people are both liberal or conservative on both types of issues, but most are not. A four party system - liberal or conservative social agendas / liberal or conservative economic agendas - seems to me the most viable deviation from our current two-party system, with the occasional additional single-issue candidate/party thrown into the mix.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I've been hearing the same tired promise of a "real third party movement" since 1980.

Still haven't seen one, and I seriously doubt I will in my lifetime.

 

[Recidiva]

The problem that I see is that most third parties that are generated have single issues. The Tea Party is actually a single issue that had all the weirdness tack itself on. Ralph Nader had only one issue. Ross Perot had only one issue.

Any third party that wishes to gain ground has to distinguish itself on all issues. It's possible, but I am not sure a sane person would undertake it.

Right now any third party that is close enough to another party just draws power from the group that is the closest to them in ideology.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No the the problem with a third party is it ultimately has to draw from the other two parties and most likely will do so more from one than the other. They can't be done.

Is there an example of a successfully sustained three-party system in any country? Seems that some countries, including the United States, have dabbled in a third party for an election cycle or two, but then they go back to their two-party mold. Multiple parties only seem to work if there are at least four or more parties that build coalitions on various issues. And will that ever happen in the United States? I read the book Crunchy Cons several years ago, which broke the Republican and Democratic parties into two parts each, along social and economic lines. Some people are both liberal or conservative on both types of issues, but most are not. A four party system - liberal or conservative social agendas / liberal or conservative economic agendas - seems to me the most viable deviation from our current two-party system, with the occasional additional single-issue candidate/party thrown into the mix.

There are ways, but they've been illegal in the US for years.

 

[pointless]

this country is too stupid for a real third party. see jesse ventura, see the libertarians. boring ass retreads. give me a decent socialist party or fuck off.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Is there an example of a successfully sustained three-party system in any country?

Yes, both the UK and Canada; and they manage that without even having a proportional representation system -- but, in each case, the smallest party (Liberal Democrats in Britain, New Democrats in Canada) always gets a far smaller percentage of seats in parliament than the percentage of its vote-share.

Every country with a PR system has at least three big-deal parties, AFAIK. But our winner-take-all-single-member-district system tends to squeeze out all but the top two finishers.

 

[KingOrfeo]

this country is too stupid for a real third party. see jesse ventura, see the libertarians. boring ass retreads. give me a decent socialist party or fuck off.

Would the Working Families Party do? It's social-democratic as opposed to socialist, but this is America and socialism always has limited prospects here. Even at its height in the early 20th Century, the American Socialist Party never cracked 20% of the vote, AFAIK (except in a few cities like Milwaukee that actually had Socialist mayors for a time), and the Communist Party USA showed hardly at all. The ASP broke up around 1972 over the issue of whether to support or oppose America's involvement in Vietnam (on the one hand the Socialists were traditionally fiercely anti-Soviet Cold Warriors, that distinguished them from the Communists; OTOH, many were part of the antiwar movement). Its successor-organization is the Socialist Party USA, but the SPUSA is marginal even compared to the ASP's other successor-organization, the Democratic Socialists of America, who are not really a party and never run candidates for office. (And don't get me started on the other successor-organization, the Social Democrats USA. Fucking splitters! )

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

this country is too stupid for a real third party. see jesse ventura, see the libertarians. boring ass retreads. give me a decent socialist party or fuck off.

I think you mean only stupid people try to form third parties based on your examples and desires.

It's easier to take control of the Republican Party than it is to start a third Party.

Damn right it is.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ralph Nader had only one issue.

No, he didn't.

Ross Perot had only one issue.

No, Ross Perot had more than one issue (though the federal budget deficit overshadowed all others). But the Reform Party had only one issue -- to elect Ross Perot president; he refused to allow it to grow into anything more, which is why it no longer exists.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's easier to take control of the Republican Party than it is to start a third Party.

That might be what the Tea Partiers thought, but they still can't seem to quite reach that point. I mean, was Romney a TP candidate?!

 

[unregistered]

 

[Recidiva]

No, he didn't.

No, Ross Perot had more than one issue (though the federal budget deficit overshadowed all others). But the Reform Party had only one issue -- to elect Ross Perot president; he refused to allow it to grow into anything more, which is why it no longer exists.

It's an oversimplification, but both Ralph Nader and Ross Perot would have made terrible presidents.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's an oversimplification, but both Ralph Nader and Ross Perot would have made terrible presidents.

I like Nader, but I don't want him for president.

I want him for USAG.

[sound of bowels opening in corporate boardrooms all across America]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Nobody thought, or even thinks now, it could be done in one or two elections.

Well, you face a dilemma there:

1) If the TP goes third-party, you marginalize the GOP, and for the foreseeable future, Dems win every election outside of a few solid-red counties.

2) If the TP takes over the GOP, you marginalize the GOP, and for the foreseeable future, Dems win every election outside of a few solid-red counties.

The present arrangement really gives the TP the most power it is ever going to have.

 

[Recidiva]

I like Nader, but I don't want him for president.

I want him for USAG.

[sound of bowels opening in corporate boardrooms all across America]

I like him too. Just not for president.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I read the book Crunchy Cons several years ago, which broke the Republican and Democratic parties into two parts each, along social and economic lines. Some people are both liberal or conservative on both types of issues, but most are not. A four party system - liberal or conservative social agendas / liberal or conservative economic agendas - seems to me the most viable deviation from our current two-party system, with the occasional additional single-issue candidate/party thrown into the mix.

Well, that's one possible lineup. Here's another:

Run this thought experiment: We institute pro-multipartisan reforms (proportional representation, instant-runoff voting, electoral fusion), and the main two big-tent political parties respond to that pressure and break up along their natural fault lines. The left wing of the Democrats splits off and merges with the Green Party, and the Working Families Party, etc., to form one big new left-progressive party. The right wing of the GOP, the Tea Party wing, splits off and merges with the Constitution Party and the America First Party to form one big new RW-conservative party. And the remainders of the Democratic and Republican parties merge.

So, now we have a three-party system: The Lefty-Hippie Commie Pansexual Pansy-Pacifist Pothead Treehugging Moonbat Party; the Mean Selfish Greedy Bigoted Pig-Ignorant Troglodyte Right-Wingnut Party; and the Squishy-Spineless Wishy-Washy Neutral-Planet Centrist Moderate Mugwump Party. (And, these will be the official names.) And we will assume that in a given legislature (Congress, state, city council) each of these has roughly 30% of the seats (the others going to smaller parties that did not merge with others, such as the Libertarians and the Socialists). And we will assume reasonable party discipline and ideological homogeneity in all three, in the sense that most representatives in a given party's caucus will vote the same way and defend the same positions most of the time.

In this lineup . . . the Mugwumps rule. They are not a majority, but they hold the balance of power by their position. Because there is no majority party, no bill ever gets passed, no thing ever gets done, unless at least two parties support it. And the Moonbats and the Wingnuts will hardly ever agree on anything. Therefore no bill ever will pass unless the Mugwumps support it. They will be in a position to vote with the Moonbats on this issue or the Wingnuts on that issue as it pleases them, and in a position to control all compromise-negotiations from the center. (Remember, we don't have a parliamentary system, so transparty coalitions do not have to be enduring or general, but can be issue-specific.) Unlike in our present system, where the Dems and the Pubs are always fighting over the center while at the same time being pulled away from it by their far-wings, sending the balance of power wobbling back and forth like crazy, sometimes.

OTOH, and again unlike in our present system, the extremists will always have a real voice, and can't complain they're being frozen out. They can stand up and defend their ideas in their own terms on the floor and in committees and on C-SPAN -- and sometimes, not often but sometimes, they will succeed in talking the Mugwumps and/or a majority of the public around to their way of thinking, or at least into experimenting with it.

It all makes for a steady course of fully informed moderation, a much more intelligent body politic that always considers all options. A permanently broad, wide Overton Window with a definite center.

Of course, there are many other possible formations into which a post-PR party system might shake out, but they are all center-seeking for the same mechanical reasons.

Most of the world's democracies post-WWII have PR and multiparty systems, and none has yet gone communist or fascist as a result.

 

[Recidiva]

Moonbat?

It's a real word.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Moonbat?

It's a real word.

So is mugwump. I've heard it defined as "a bird who sits on a fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other."

 

[Recidiva]

So is mugwump. I've heard it defined as "a bird who sits on a fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other."

Origin of MUGWUMP

obsolete slang mugwump kingpin, from Massachusett mugquomp, muggumquomp war leader

First Known Use: 1884

Yeah. We should stop using that word. And Moonbat. I've decided. So mote it be.

 

[pointless]

also, a gay sex monster.

 

[unregistered]